Military Obligation

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, isacarrot said:

I enlisted almost 6 months ago. I'm in a college program (not ROTC) so I've been minimally exposed to the military - nevertheless, I thought I'd jump in the middle of this conversation and share my opinion here.

I agree that citizens of a nation have a duty, to some degree, to defend the nation when the threat exists. People who claim freedom have a duty, to some degree, to defend that freedom when the threat exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the (false) assumption is being made that defense = military. Military is one critical way to defend a country. I think that there are other critical ways (through politics, economics, education, technology, practicing charity, etc).

I think it is therefore a fallacy to assume that some degree of duty to defense = a specific duty to military. Correct me if I've missed another premise stated somewhere in this 4-page discussion that will fill in the apparent logical gap

Thank you for engaging.  Please note that I have stated throughout this thread that I believe everyone has a military obligation.  Part of the problem may lie in the fact that many have become misinformed concerning the military.  @Colirio has made some very important points about failures of education.  One glaring failure of current education concerns the military.  The truth is that only a minority of individuals in the military will engage in combat.  Never-the-less, all individuals in the military complete what is called basic training.  This is so everyone in the military will know what to do if all other defenses in place break down one must defend themselves and those around them.   What I am trying to do is educate those that may think otherwise - that perhaps those that do not have such morals or values - are not good candidates of honor and trust. 

I am not 100% sure but it appears the @Colirio does not have much respect for those in the military - Having been in the military - it is mostly those in the military that do not respect others - that I personally have difficulty.  For example, I am not a fan of the culture of officers and enlisted.  But I feel such things are different problems than those that think themselves above or superior to those in the military.  

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Here in Australia, unemployment amongst those who have served in the military is several times higher than the average rate of unemployment. THis seems to hold true no matter how long your length of service or which branch of the military you served in.

Different culture.

US culture still holds a lot of respect and high regard for military vets regardless of the number of Rambo experiences out there.  From my observation, Marines get higher regard than other branches and putting USMC on a resume puts some weight on it.

Edited October 18, 2018 by anatess2

[askandanswer]

On 10/4/2018 at 1:21 AM, Traveler said:

One point I would like to put forward at this time - for all the arguments concerning individuals that should not be in the military - I do not understand why such individuals should vote. 

If there is to be any kind of condition on the right to vote and participate in government, it would be far more sensible for any such conditions to be linked to money, ie, taxes, than military service. Money does far more to protect a nation than does any sort of military activity.

[anatess2]

Dupe.

Edited October 18, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

If there is to be any kind of condition on the right to vote and participate in government, it would be far more sensible for any such conditions to be linked to money, ie, taxes, than military service. Money does far more to protect a nation than does any sort of military activity.

I like how the country was designed in the beginning.  No income taxes and only property owners can vote.

But I vehemently disagree that money protects a nation.  It does not.  A military force protects a nation.  Yes, you need resources to build a military, but the Vietnamese is testament that sticks and stones DO break bones.

Edited October 18, 2018 by anatess2

[askandanswer]

On 10/4/2018 at 1:21 AM, Traveler said:

 

Dup

 

[askandanswer]

Its the money that pays for the military. If you've got no money, then you've got no military, no weapons, no nothing. The soldiers won't fight for free, and if they do, they won't have anything to fight with. It was not just the US forces on the ground that won the war in Europe, it was the incredible economy behind them generating all the necessary wealth and materials that made the real difference. 

[isacarrot]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for engaging.  Please note that I have stated throughout this thread that I believe everyone has a military obligation.  Part of the problem may lie in the fact that many have become misinformed concerning the military.  @Colirio has made some very important points about failures of education.  One glaring failure of current education concerns the military.  The truth is that only a minority of individuals in the military will engage in combat.  Never-the-less, all individuals in the military complete what is called basic training.  This is so everyone in the military will know what to do if all other defenses in place break down one must defend themselves and those around them.   What I am trying to do is educate those that may think otherwise - that perhaps those that do not have such morals or values - are not good candidates of honor and trust. 

I am not 100% sure but it appears the @Colirio does not have much respect for those in the military - Having been in the military - it is mostly those in the military that do not respect others - that I personally have difficulty.  For example, I am not a fan of the culture of officers and enlisted.  But I feel such things are different problems than those that think themselves above or superior to those in the military.  

 

The Traveler

Thank you for the response!

Can you correct me if I'm misunderstanding you? You're saying that basic training includes learning what to do to physically protect yourself and others when other armed forces cannot. Also, that someone who has not learned this is not as trustworthy, and by extension (from what I've been able to tell from your other comments) should be barred from things like voting privileges and government welfare. Let me know if I didn't botch that up too badly.

With even my limited experience in the military I can already sense animosity between officers and enlisted. I hope that once I'm commissioned I can help ease that, at least within my circle of influence.

[askandanswer]

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

  No income taxes and only property owners can vote.

B

I'm not familiar with US constitutional history, but I'm presuming that this idea of limiting the right to vote to just property owners was based on the assumption that only citizens could own property? If the right to vote in Australia was limited to property owners, then we would be given the right to vote to enormous number of foreign investors, many of whom have never been to Australia. I think that citizenship, more than taxes or military service should be the primary determinant when considering who should be allowed to vote, although here in Australia permanent residents had the right to vote up until some time in the early 1990s. 

[JohnsonJones]

I don't talk about it much, but when I was younger there was a draft going on.  I had experiences with it and, yes...I did serve in the military.  I do not really like speaking about it.

Due to my experiences one could put me down as being absolutely AGAINST mandatory military service.  I am against forcing one to be in the military in order for them to vote.  I feel that UNLESS the nation is literally under attack (ala...Pearl Harbor) and we need to actually defend the nation, we shouldn't even have the draft.  If there is a need for people to rise up to defend their nation, then a draft is okay.  We also have reserves and national guard.  These are composed of volunteers that are called up from time to time to active duty. 

I say that if the nation is attacked we have a right to defend ourselves.  The Japanese in WWII did not attack due to how many guns we have.  They thought that there would be a gun behind every bush and every door.  In this way, due to the 2nd amendment we have the largest standing army in the world.  It may not be trained as per the military regulations, but have no doubt that as long as we have a sizeable number of people with their own guns, we have one of the largest civilian defense forces one could find.

It has decreased in size, power, and ability in recent years, but it still exists.

The military is not the only way to defend the freedom of a nation, and ascribing that all must participate, in my opinion, is NOT the way to go.

We are a nation of free men (this term includes women), and as such, we are granted privileges and rights.  We are not forced to be in the military to vote, nor are we forced to join a military force in order to be a citizen.  I am glad for those who defend our freedoms militarily, but I am also glad that our freedoms are protected under the Constitution from enemies both abroad and domestic who would take away those freedoms.

However, I do not feel we need to enforce mandatory military service.

My opinion.

[Colirio]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I am not 100% sure but it appears the @Colirio does not have much respect for those in the military - 

 

The Traveler

 

This is completely, 100% false. 

 

I have stated my support, admiration, and gratitude for those who serve multiple times in this thread and reaffirm it now. 

 

[Colirio]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And you keep on going back to drafted soldiers when that's EXACTLY NOT what you want to do..,. DRAFTING UNTRAINED SOLDIERS especially when you're already in the middle of a war is stupid!  THAT'S EXACTLY WHY you want obligatory military training!  

 

Even though you edited your original post, this edit still makes very little sense. 

 

Drafted soldiers receive the same basic training as the other soldiers. The difference is that they don't want to be there. 

 

Those who are forced into combat against their will are a danger to those around them. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Colirio

[Guest Scott]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Different culture.

US culture still holds a lot of respect and high regard for military vets regardless of the number of Rambo experiences out there.  

This is true now, but having been in the military, I will say that in my lifetime at least, it wasn't like that until after 9/11.   Before that WWII Vets would get a lot of respect, but the military itself or the soldiers themselves weren't always looked that highly upon.

Now days, a lot of the airline announcements say "we'd like to thank those serving in the military" or something similar, but that never happened (as far as I have heard/experienced) before 9/11. 

I have a book from the 1990's that had gave two examples of oxymoron.   Those were "Jumbo Shrimp" and "Military Intelligence". 

The 80's and 90's were full of movies and shows making fun of the military.  They really don't make movies making fun of soldiers, vets, and the military anymore, or at least not as many.   

(Note:  I posted a link to the trailer for Stripes, but decided to remove it because it might be inappropriate for this forum).  

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

Even though you edited your original post, this edit still makes very little sense. 

 

Drafted soldiers receive the same basic training as the other soldiers. The difference is that they don't want to be there. 

 

Those who are forced into combat against their will are a danger to those around them. 

The draft is instituted when there is a war.  That's why they don't want to be there.  Only a very few people want to go to war especially if it's in defense of another country.  But when you do get invaded, you don't have time to train when you're already in the midst of combat.  You train BEFORE you end up having to go to war.  You are forced to go to combat by the invaders.  You won't have much of a choice in the matter.  Going into combat without military training puts the "guns behind every bush" unorganized and chaotic - to each their own.  They would be MUCH MORE effective if they know how they are organized in the bigger body of the US Military much like each LDS member know how the chain of command and communications go when a hurricane strikes and they mobilize for service.  That's what ROTC is for.

Edited October 19, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

This is true now, but having been in the military, I will say that in my lifetime at least, it wasn't like that until after 9/11.   Before that WWII Vets would get a lot of respect, but the military itself or the soldiers themselves weren't always looked that highly upon.

Now days, a lot of the airline announcements say "we'd like to thank those serving in the military" or something similar, but that never happened (as far as I have heard/experienced) before 9/11. 

 

We've had the "Shamu thanks the military" as long as I can remember going to Sea World (back in the 90's).  Same thing with NFL games and Daytona 500 - but that's probably because they always do the anthem in NFL games and Daytona 500 which usually involves the military.

But yeah, the Vietnam War put a pock mark on the US Military, even in the Philippines.  It got so bad that we "kicked" the US bases out of the Philippines (which was stupid in my opinion).

Edited October 19, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The draft is instituted when there is a war.  That's why they don't want to be there.  Only a very few people want to go to war especially if it's in defense of another country.  But when you do get invaded, you don't have time to train when you're already in the midst of combat.  You train BEFORE you end up having to go to war.  You are forced to go to combat by the invaders.  You won't have much of a choice in the matter.  Going into combat without military training puts the "guns behind every bush" unorganized and chaotic - to each their own.  They would be MUCH MORE effective if they know how they are organized in the bigger body of the US Military.  That's what ROTC is for.

That hasn't helped most nations with the exception of Israel.  Most nations that have mandatory military service and then have been invaded have been conquered.

The US has never been conquered.  The Draft works fine when creating forces for the defense of the nation.

The Nephites appear to have had a standing army, but they also had people that were trained up and made into Nephite Warriors when they had extended wars as well.  Training soldiers and warrior after a war begins does not mean you will lose the war.  Having everyone trained in a military fashion does not necessarily mean you will have a successful defense.

I think there is a LOT of people criticizing those who were drafted into the military.  Just because one was a draftee does NOT mean that they did not do their best or fight ineffectively, or were a support force that was ineffective.  In fact, most times it is exactly the opposite, they ARE effective, that's why we keep the draft as an option.  World War 2 had a draft and the US draftees beat our enemies.  The Civil War had a draft and though it was tough going at first, the Union was preserved and won that war as well.  BOTH of those wars were in defense of the US.

If one wants to look at Vietnam, it wasn't because people were drafted that made this war so tough, it was because many did not feel this was actually defending our nation.  We were being sent to fight for some other nation that most didn't even care about and some didn't even know where it was until they were sent there!  AS far as some could see, it had nothing to do with defending the US!

From a historical point, and a broad overview, I can now see that it had relevance and the US actually DID meet it's goals to a point.  In that way, the US actually did NOT lose the war (something that many still dishonor Vietnam Vets with when they claim the US lost the war and other things).  We kept the Communist tangled up on their side of the world for many years with Vietnam and other smaller conflicts and skirmishes.  In a way, we took the Cold War to their doorstep instead of them taking it to ours.  However, that is a VERY hard thing for the short term memories of people to see or comprehend. 

However, those who were drafted served their nation with honor for the most part.  To say that they did not care, especially when they were over there in the middle of the fight, is simply not true.  They may not have cared for the politicians and many of the policies (and if one wonders why we didn't advance further than we did at times, look no further than politicians and ridiculous policies), but even those who were drafted were in the thick of it. 

Even today we see FAR too little respect given to those who suffered, fought, and even many who died in the Vietnam conflict. 

Sorry, I shouldn't have spoken up here, but disrespecting those who served in Vietnam gets me a little irked.  I should not be, it is very unchristlike of me, so I apologize, however, those American Boys probably helped preserve American democracy and freedom more than most realize.  It was keeping the fight contained over there and not spreading even further than it did that we accomplished the goals of America.  It was never really about defeating Vietnam (as far as I am concerned) as much as it was keeping the fight over Communism among other people rather than the American People.  In that, we succeeded tremendously.  For those who fought and died over there, we should respect their sacrifice and courage just as much as any other soldier who has died for our nation, draftees and all.

Edited October 19, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[askandanswer]

Iv'e seen several comments along the lines of "you don't want someone to be there in the front lines if they are a draftee and don't want to be there.". I'm not saying in this post whether I'm for or against the draft, but if we did have the draft, surely the professional soldiers could be up at the front line doing all the fighting, and the draftees could be somewhere other than the front line in a supportive role, still being helpful, but not getting in the way of the most important stuff.  

[anatess2]

53 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That hasn't helped most nations with the exception of Israel.  Most nations that have mandatory military service and then have been invaded have been conquered.

The US has never been conquered.  

You didn't win any war you engaged in after WWII.  You didn't get conquered because you have 2 big oceans to each side of you and a sizeable population and none of the super powers are determined to bridge it.

You can't expect a tiny country like... oh, I don't know, DPRK to come up with a military force to defeat the US.  But... today... I won't bet on the US against China.  That's pretty much why the Philippines distanced themselves from the US pre-Trump.  Trump's been only President for 2 years.  

Edited October 19, 2018 by anatess2

[askandanswer]

And the reason why Australia has never been conquered is because we are all just far too nice and nobody would ever want to to be mean to us.  

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

And the reason why Australia has never been conquered is because we are all just far too nice and nobody would ever want to to be mean to us.  

Perhaps it's not the people invaders are afraid of. 

Australia; where the spiders eat birds and snakes and even the mammals are poisonous.  Even the snails can kill you.  

 

Anyway, last time I camped in Australia, I walked to the creek at night to get some water.   Something in the bushes started growling at me and it freaked me out since I didn't know what it was.    And this after I have camped while the tent getting surrounded by a herd of hippopotamus and on another occasion had wild tiger footprints outside the tent.   That growling, whatever it was freaked me out a lot more than those other incidences.  

Edited October 19, 2018 by Scott

[askandanswer]

I recognise that croc. He's a corporal in the northern second armoured amphibious battalion. His battalion helps protect our northern borders from campers. They are ably supported by bush growlers.  

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You didn't win any war you engaged in after WWII.  You didn't get conquered because you have 2 big oceans to each side of you and a sizeable population and none of the super powers are determined to bridge it.

You can't expect a tiny country like... oh, I don't know, DPRK to come up with a military force to defeat the US.  But... today... I won't bet on the US against China.  That's pretty much why the Philippines distanced themselves from the US pre-Trump.  Trump's been only President for 2 years.  

That's untrue.  WE were fighting the Communists and much vaster resources in both Korea and Vietnam and the RoE were NOT to defeat or takeover either of the nations.  That was NOT the objective and thus not what the US was trying to achieve.  We achieved objectives in both, and won the Cold War in the long run without a nuclear holocaust.  If the US had lost and not achieved it's objectives, for example, the Philippines would not be free today, they would be a communist nation.  If you like being free, thank an American.  However, my intent is not to cause discord on the forums so I am not going to debate you any further. 

This line of conversation could lead me to being very unChristlike and probably very nasty.  Discussions like these probably get closer to my emotional core than needed and can lead me to a dark path.

However, your statement is a message from Anti-Americans that many Americans have promoted and some have accepted.  Your insult to Vietnam Veterans is not appreciated though.

Edited October 19, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

Sorry, I shouldn't have spoken up here, but disrespecting those who served in Vietnam gets me a little irked.  

 

For what it's worth, I'm glad that you spoke up in here. 

 

Most especially, thank you for the sacrifices you made. 

 

Also, my intention was never to disparage those who served, draftees or otherwise. I didn't stand in their boots and am not their judge. 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

  We achieved objectives in both

Korea yes; but we did not achieve the objectives in Vietnam.  Even today, Vietnam is is one of only five remaining communist countries.  

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

That's untrue.  WE were fighting the Communists and much vaster resources in both Korea and Vietnam and the RoE were NOT to defeat or takeover either of the nations.  That was NOT the objective and thus not what the US was trying to achieve.  We achieved objectives in both, and won the Cold War in the long run without a nuclear holocaust.  If the US had lost and not achieved it's objectives, for example, the Philippines would not be free today, they would be a communist nation.  If you like being free, thank an American.  However, my intent is not to cause discord on the forums so I am not going to debate you any further. 

This line of conversation could lead me to being very unChristlike and probably very nasty.  Discussions like these probably get closer to my emotional core than needed and can lead me to a dark path.

However, your statement is a message from Anti-Americans that many Americans have promoted and some have accepted.  Your insult to Vietnam Veterans is not appreciated though.

No, you didn't achieve your objectives in both, the proof of which is the continued existence of the DPRK and Vietnam being Communist even today.  You can huff and puff all you like, but those are the facts.

And you don't know your history of the Philippines.  WE WON our Independence from SPAIN who then sold us to the US in exchange for Cuba instead of handing the government over to the Filipinos.  We fought the US even in our depleted state and would have continued the war until it was won or we were all dead (as is enshrined in our National Anthem) if the Republicans in US Congress did not agree that the Philippines were not barbarians and are, therefore, capable of diplomacy.  WE WON our Independence through diplomatic means BEFORE World War II.  The legal transfer of power was interrupted by World War II.  

And we fought Communism OURSELVES.  That's why we continued our support of Marcos (and the US did too) because he kept the Communists at bay.  We got rid of Marcos ourselves too and got rid of the US bases as the US continued to meddle in Philippine elections.  We also kicked Islamic terrorists' butt even as the US (thank you Bush and Obama) couldn't get their act straight on the matter.  

You are a Patriot, I understand that.  And I have been very vocal in my support of the USA.  But facts are facts and unless you look at history from the eyes of non-American historians you're going to continue having a romanticized view of it and be blind to the stupidity of American foreign policy (to which the Bush family were smack dab in the middle of for the past half century - who couldn't, or is it wouldn't?, end a war) - which is why I went all out in support of Trump who is a breath of fresh air from the American machine - both Democrats and Republicans - who, together with the British, has made a mess of the planet outside their borders post World War II.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by anatess2